You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

^ my instinct is that the relationship to the perception function is vital. Imma claim there's no proper way of understanding a judgment "function" (beyond identifying it with lots of ideal properties, like "IT'S SOOOO LOGICAL, MAN!!!!") without connecting it to the context in which it operates: "Te" isn't Te, it's Te+Pe (and for other people, Pe+Te). So Te's as objective as any other e.

That's what's so great about typology: rag on some function, and you end up ragging on your own.

I'm not sure what you're rambling on about today, weirdo, because that was exactly my own point. Te isn't any more realistic than any other function.

I wonder if your SO has Si as well as Ti? This sounds like hanging posters with my ESFJ ex.

Tertiary Si, which often surprises me with its strength. Once I understood the role of the tertiary, alot of things about my SO made more sense.

I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

The question is of relatively no importance unless some description of how judgment itself arises is found. Without an origin story, the rest is just ideal properties. So from whence does judgment itself arise?

Yes I agree with this, I mean "externally verifiable" can just mean pointing to sources that are "experts" in the external world. It doesn't always mean one is doing the measurement one's self.

This is why certain TJs can seem so "rule bound" because they are relying on "experts" and external structure for a sense of logical order.

On the other hand, I still think Te is closer to reality than Ti. Yes it is. YES IT IS.

I dunno. I think of mathematics as applied to physical reality in physics as a very Ti pursuit and that seems a whole lot more realistic to me than stuff like Bertrand Russell. I agree Ti left on it's lonesome is not very realistic. You see this a lot in pure maths where basically it becomes a fun #s game that is its own sort of universe that doesn't always coincide w reality. I agree that Se is most about reality, but it is not comprehensive.

For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.

I dunno. I think of mathematics as applied to physical reality in physics as a very Ti pursuit and that seems a whole lot more realistic to me than stuff like Bertrand Russell. I agree Ti left on it's lonesome is not very realistic. You see this a lot in pure maths where basically it becomes a fun #s game that is its own sort of universe that doesn't always coincide w reality. I agree that Se is most about reality, but it is not comprehensive.

No Se is not comprehensive, because it's merely a perception.

Ti seems like non-reality to me was my point. It doesn't seem sane to me to have logic come from within, and I've had a conversation with more than one INTP on-line where I was just like OH.MY.GOD. WTF. DOES. THIS. HAVE. TO. DO. WITH. REALITY.

But that doesn't really mean that it isn't sane, and it doesn't mean it's not part of reality, just as the seven other functions.

It just means that to me, logic seems like something that surely should be externally verifiable, and that's because I prefer Te.

I find that extjs often are idealistic in their way of thinking and so they can blind themselves to reality by having a philosophy that they follow that isn't objectively true. I come from socionics world so we probably view this differently. I think it is most useful to think of all ways of thinking as "perspectives" not as fundamentally true though. To me Te/Ti don't really exist. That is why I am using types and describing their behavior as rational/irrational rather than talking about Ti. I think many ixtjs that are not familiar with socionics have a more comprehensive and objectively true view of the world than many extjs that I meet (in socionics ixtj is Ti dominant). To use a concrete example, I think Richard Feynman (who imo is entp) has a more comprehensive and objectively true view of the world than a Mitt Romney (who I believe to be entj). I think you disparage "Ti types" because you associate it with crazy internet people. I associate it with some of the most brilliant minds to grace the earth like Stephen Hawking.

For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.

I find that extjs often are idealistic in their way of thinking and so they can blind themselves to reality by having a philosophy that they follow that isn't objectively true. I come from socionics world so we probably view this differently. I think it is most useful to think of all ways of thinking as "perspectives" not as fundamentally true though. To me Te/Ti don't really exist. That is why I am using types and describing their behavior as rational/irrational rather than talking about Ti. I think many ixtjs that are not familiar with socionics have a more comprehensive and objectively true view of the world than many extjs that I meet (in socionics ixtj is Ti dominant). To use a concrete example, I think Richard Feynman (who imo is entp) has a more comprehensive and objectively true view of the world than a Mitt Romney (who I believe to be entj). I think you disparage "Ti types" because you associate it with crazy internet people. I associate it with some of the most brilliant minds to grace the earth like Stephen Hawking.

No, I don't think that's what it is at all.

I am not disparaging ANYONE. I have been casually seeing an ISTP for the past several months. I don't doubt his sanity because he's a Ti dom. I also think Albert Einstein was quite brilliant.

I'm talking about my own perspective of Ti and how it can frustrate and annoy me, especially when supported by Ne, apparently. I honestly now find it similar to @simulatedworld's bitching about Fi.

It doesn't mean that Ti is wrong or less than, it means that because of my own function preference, I have a serious aversion to it.

You on the other hand seem to have a clearer aversion to Te.

Interestingly, I see flaws in BOTH. I see flaws in all functions. But from my own personal perspective, Ti *in isolation* is the least preferred for me.

You apparently have a pretty strong opposition to Te. Are you an Fe dom or aux?

I do not have an aversion to Te, just contrasting as I thought you were giving Ti -rep lol. But, just to be a braggart Te is usually used for gay shit like like law and economics whereas Ti is math/quantum physics. Just kidding. I think the Ni Te combo is particularly useful in understanding things like probability. Also, in socionics TJs are seen as having developed Ti AND Te. They just see one as "more important" than the other. Anywayz, enough of this gay shit. Back to REALITY

For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.

I do not have an aversion to Te, just contrasting as I thought you were giving Ti -rep lol. But, just to be a braggart Te is usually used for gay shit like like law and economics whereas Ti is math/quantum physics. Just kidding. I think the Ni Te combo is particularly useful in understanding things like probability. Also, in socionics TJs are seen as having developed Ti AND Te. They just see one as "more important" than the other. Anywayz, enough of this gay shit. Back to REALITY

Law isn't ghey. It's highly necessary to, you know, daily life and reality.

In fact, so are economics.

Quantum physics isn't necessary to daily life. Therefore it is less necessary, less to do with reality.

Yes, I know why I don't like Ti.

It is necessary, but in my world it is utterly superfluous. I concern myself actually with thinking about laws and economics LULZ.

For all that we have done, as a civilization, as individuals, the universe is not stable, and nor is any single thing within it. Stars consume themselves, the universe itself rushes apart, and we ourselves are composed of matter in constant flux. Colonies of cells in temporary alliance, replicating and decaying and housed within, an incandescent cloud of electrical impulses. This is reality, this is self knowledge, and the perception of it will, of course, make you dizzy.